Refugees from that brave new world you have over there. Pilgrims in search of your Mecca … only you have no Mecca.

You’ve rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls among all the libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe … never quite seeing or catching hold of anything that lies outside those musty, but god knows elegant, interiors. It’s called ‘finding oneself’ I believe … as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.

Yet it’s kind of a fear isn’t it? A fear of Life.”

=

Celestial chess

—

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I ama hurricane.

That they will step back and be intimidatedby my muchness. “

=

Michelle K.

———

So. Muchness. Muchness is what resides within each one of us. The problem is Life, in general, encourage us to exhibit, well, much less. Therefore we seem to spend a lot of time in the wretched hollow between our muchness and what we believe the world can accept of our muchness. In other words, we are always seek to constrict not expand.

Oddly this creates a lot of self reflection. A lot of “who am I”, finding onself and defining what is the right level of public muchness. We search as in “as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.”Far too often finding one’s muchness, paradoxically, seems a lot like stagnancy. There may seem like a lot of movement in that you may be moving around a lot <going places, visiting libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe>, but in actuality, you are stagnant … personally.

All the movement appears to be some kind of search within oneself, but you are doing it by seeking ‘out-of-self’ things. Worse? Your self search often gets judged by what cues the ‘out-of-self- things provide you. Its almost like the search makes you a refugee from yourself. You invest energy not on progress but rather in searching backwards or ‘within’ <by viewing within the past for insights> to find ‘something.’

Well. This all seems crazy to me. Seems like maybe by the time you finish your search the rest of the world has moved on by. I would suggest time may be better served by something in which typical ‘finding oneself’ discussions do not appear to encompass — the word ‘disturbing.’ As in maybe ‘disturbing oneself.’ As in disturbing the universe. Kind of like shaking the personal etch a sketch a bit and in doing so be willing to shake the societal status quo of “what you should expect” etch a sketch..

By the way, to me, the fact ‘disturbing’ rarely is included in any ‘finding oneself’ discussion is crazy. Mostly because emotion is the energy for change and I would argue emotion is the engine for muchness.

Ok. What the hell am I talking about? The roots of disturb is the latin word – Emovere.

===

<latin> emovere: to disturb

===

Emotion literally means disturbance. The word emotion comes from the Latin emovere meaning “to disturb.” Therefore, emovere can be seen as a version of how we find ourselves. A combination of emotion & disturb is the creation of one’s muchness.

Look. Disturb may sound, well, disturbing or maybe a little extreme but, what the hell, you spend gobs of energy going out and about having rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls.

The whole idea of ‘finding oneself’ all with the overall intent to seek opportunities to find out about ourselves and discover your muchness, i.e., what we are made up of and what we can be.

Disturbing, at its core, is about shifting shit so that opportunities can be uncovered.

This leads me to a guy named Pittacus … one of the Seven Sages of Greece. While each of the seven sages was supposed to represent an edict of worldly knowledge <Solon of Athens was actually “know thyself”> it was Pittacus who proposed ‘you should know which opportunities to choose.’

—

Other Pittacus Quotes

“It is hard to be good”

“Know when to act”

“Seize Time by the forelock.”

–

Disturbing is the energy which creates opportunities <not wandering the world of libraries and museums> and then … well … you gotta know which opportunities to choose.

Shit. No wonder we decide to try and find oneself by wandering the world, it sounds a shitload easier than disturbing, recognizing opportunities, than actually knowing which opportunities to choose. In fact all that sure sounds like there is lots of room for errors or missed opportunities are even a lot of bad choices.

Well. That’s the deal if you want to find yourself and let the world see your muchness.

It ain’t easy. And there is a lot of room for mistakes and bad choices. You gotta keep your eye on the prize.

Now. ‘Muchness’ is a great thing for you … uhm … but can be scary for others around you.

However. Not everyone, in fact, I would suggest the majority of us never discover our maximum muchness. Most of us just find crumbs of our muchness <and are quite satisfied>.

Some of us just get a bite or two of our muchness <and that is even more satisfying>. And then there are the few who actually find ‘oneself’ and all their muchness. Which leads me back to where I opended today:

————

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I ama hurricane. That they will step back and be intimidatedby my muchness. “

—————–

Well. This makes me think that maybe the reason most of us go about finding ourselves the wrong way is because most of us fear becoming the hurricane we could be. Muchness is scary. Muchness is not only a little scary to ourselves but absolutely can be intimidating to others. Hence … “you can be a little too much on occasion.” Frankly, this is where it gets tricky. When you hear that you naturally pull in your muchness. Which is a little nuts. Nuts because YOU can handle your muchness its OTHERS who cannot – its their issue and not yours.

Anyway.

I imagine my real point in all of this is that while finding oneself is not easy once you embrace your muchness it gets difficult.Here’s what I do know.

Let’s be honest. Most of us, even if we are really lucky, will only find crumbs of our muchness. Yup, even if we do most of the formula right … just crumbs. And that is manageable. And while crumbs sounds … well … crummy. It’s not. They represent glimpses of our greatness. The muchness inside us is the best of our best … the best version of I … the greatness within.

And even if we only get a glimpse of it? Well. In the immortal words of the coach in the movie The Replacements:

==

“Greatness, no matter how brief, stays with you forever.”

Gene Hackman <the replacements>

==

Finding oneself truly has to be done with some intent of finding some greatness <I mean, c’mon, why else would we invest energy doing it?>. It’s all about finding whatever glimpse of greatness, of muchness, we have within us <and most everyone has at least a glimpse>. And why wouldn’t we seek to find ‘oneself’ the right way?

Fear.

The opening quote suggested ‘a fear of Life.’ Well. I would suggest it would be more ‘a fear of Muchness’.

Regardless.

Suffice it to say that Self, or our’ muchness’, does not exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold. And that said … remember … if you truly desire to ‘find yourself’ don’t head out like a pilgrim in search of your mecca just think one word – emovere.

In other words … Disturb.

Disturb your world and your universe and watch for the opportunities and don’t fear your muchness and, mos importantly, don’t let the outside world’s fear of your muchmness make you make your much a lesser version of what it can be.

Embrace your muchness and disturb the universe. I could think of worse advice.

“Never dare to sell your soul for money, because no amount of wealth would buy you an air conditioner in hell.”
―

Edmond Mbiaka

==============

Ok. This isn’t a religious post. Nor is this about selling your soul to the devil. Its nothing really that deep.

Ok. Maybe its deep .. just not that kind of deep.

This is simply about how far someone is willing to go to sell something in business. Or maybe better said how far someone will go to get money, or fame or power or something they desire?

What got me thinking about this? Business life. If you ever want to learn what your soul is worth go work at a smaller to mid sized advertising agency (although I envision a lot of people in sales also face the question at some point or another).

—

“Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”

Mark Twain

—-

While I chuckled when I read this quote it was admittedly a painful chuckle. Painful because I cannot tell you how many times (suffice it to say … too many for fingers and toes) I have been in new business meetings when it was painfully obvious that whatever new business we were discussing was so wrong for us as a client. And yet the conversation kept rolling around and rolling around under the guise of “they would be a good client” (because they have money).

Don’t get me wrong. I like money. But not all money is the same. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul … by soul I mean your inner value compass.

People who are defined solely by money can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact … they do … there is even a selling “event” called selling your soul.

“The live Selling Your Soul event in NYC is over, and we’re all rolling on a wave of vivid business-building bliss. It was a high-gloss experience, where we intimately unpacked Burning Questions on messaging, marketing + online money-making, the myth of work-life “balance,” fearless price-raising, prosperous collaborating, and getting Witnessed for what you’re worth.”

Attitudinally one of the owners summarizes it by “I make my own economy” (philosophically, I actually kind of like that thought).

And (to be fair). That same owner uses money to balance her moral compass: “I kicked off GirlUp with their first substantial donation, proving once again that lots of cash can = lots of impact. Philanthropy is the bottom line.”

Yet. Here is my struggle with her philanthropic angle. I would argue with the owner in that philanthropy is not her bottom line. Her bottom line is money. And she uses her money to create her balance (note: although their website is strewn with words & thoughts that their soul is defined by a combination of fame & fortune so it seems like the philanthropy is just a ‘thing’ done to ease their soul angst).

Regardless. I wish it were that easy for me. Because it is not.

Look … I recognize the issue … who wouldn’t want to be recognized or have a generous income or a dream vacation home?

Face it. We all do. But at what price? And does the end justify the means? And, obviously, WHICH end justifies the means? That is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end (whether that be mid life or at ‘the big finish’) you are judging your actions not by tangible things but the intangible balance of self worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self esteem).

It is interesting because I have seen a variety of ways people justify how they sell their soul but one word continues to stand up as the face of behavior over & over again:

“winning”

To these people its all about winning. Winning at any cost. Or just being able to say “I won.” But (here is the news) winning is not always good. There IS such a thing as a bad win. Unfortunately, the people who define their soul by winning don’t see that (or they may but justify their actions based on “we won”). Am I suggesting this aspect should be about fair play? No. not really. This is about playing by your moral compass.

“money”

The thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase all of their problems. These people believe that fancy cars, designer clothes and big houses will make life better. This person may try to balance it with some philanthropic aspect (typically toward the end of their lives – see Andrew Carnegie as prime example) but they are consistently willing to ignore any moral compass within their pursuit for money.

“fame”

Yes. The spotlight is a dazzling temptation. And that same spotlight can blind you as to the wreckage around you. But to the one seeking fame maybe that is the beauty of being in the spotlight – the only thing you can see under that glaring light is yourself. What can I say more than that? I guess if you really want someone to worship you maybe consider becoming a benevolent dictator instead.

Oh. And the worst of all?

“being liked”

This is a sneaky one and may sound odd associated with selling your soul. Think about it: maybe its you want people to like you … so you sell your soul to the highest bidder (again, especially IF they are someone who holds a prominent position, this is an action leading to personal moral decay … if not total destruction). This one is insidious in that it creates self definition by having NO self definition. You may as well have sold your soul to the highest bidder … just make sure it isn’t the devil.

Anyway. In the end I know the decision I have made. And that is always to be true to myself. Tell the truth. Seek good wins (not any win).

And I have found I cannot work places that don’t feel the same way. Not really just because of me … but because I find that companies that sell their soul doesn’t create a corporate culture which I like nor a culture which I ultimately believe is healthy.

And lastly. And maybe most importantly to me. I don’t believe it teaches young people growing up in business the right thing. The senior ‘leaders’ (and I use that term loosely in this situation) simply do not recognize the repercussions of their decision to ‘sell out.’ And that is a shame.

The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.” -William James

“Habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way” as the hell we make for ourselves.

Whew.

That is good. Really good words to think about.

I do not believe ‘what is the value of our soul’ or describing being directed by your inner values compass could ever be articulated better.

Selling your soul, even in business, just to get something to have it (regardless of the practical or unpractical reason) is making your own hell you will have to live in. And when you get to that hell maybe you can convince yourself you are a warm weather person and enjoy living where it is always hot … but … you are in your own personal hell.

I know I cannot convince all leaders of organizations to recognize this (because when a leader is in a personal hell it reaches out and encompasses his/her organization and poisons it … either slowly or quickly).

But I do know we can make personal decisions about this:

Be yourself.

Say no and mean it.

Subdue that which tries to destroy you.

Avoid the temptation to do what you know is wrong.

Face the truth that you are doing nothing but being untrue to yourself if you get blinded by money or fame.

In the end, in every decision, each person has to hold on to the core value of what defines themselves at their soul. Because every decision either diminishes or grows your personal purpose. And, yes, these decisions in organizations also unify or separate a group of people even more strongly than a similar language or history (at least in my eyes) because, well, this is part of what some people call “a business purpose.”. When people live by their core values and convictions the “center” is stronger.

And. If you don’t have a center, don’t you just fall apart as being just parts?

So. All that said. I am not a big self reflection guy … but I do believe it is worth a minute or two to identify what is your soul, or your core if you don’t want to get hung up on the word soul because, if you don’t, you may end up selling something you don’t want to, uhm, like your soul.

This is the word to use when evasion is achieved by clouding the issue.

Creating a smoke-screen.

prevaricate, evade, dodge

==================

“When shrouded meanings and grim intentions are nicely polished up and pokerfaced personae are generously palming off their fantasy constructs, caution is the watchword, since rimpling water on the well of truth swiftly obscures our vision and perception.

(“Trompe le pied/wrong foot.”)”

―

Erik Pevernagie

===============

So. There is possibly nothing more aggravating in business than someone not answering “the” question. To be clear on what I am speaking about. The person answers a question just not the one you asked.

I am not going to argue that some questions are not easy to answer. I won’t even argue that we get asked questions we don’t know the answers to but the situation dictates we make something up <yes … that happens in business>. But abandoning the question completely is complete bullshit.

But you know what?

I think the main reason it is so aggravating is because it is truly a reflection of intentions. There is even a book called The Anthropology of Intentionsby a professor, Alessandro Duranti, who kind of tackles this whole discussion of intentions & words. He offers us the thought of ‘intentional discourse’ wherein an individual filters words through their beliefs & desires and their plans & goals to guide the discourse <regardless of whether the rest of the people want it guided that way>. In other words, using another phrase he offers us, by engaging in an intentional continuum people ponder their use of words through self-interest motivations <some good & some bad>.

By the way … I am fairly sure I mangled his academic masterpiece but you get the point.

Ah. “You get the point.” I share that again because while we sit there aggravated at someone who completely avoided answering the question asked we almost always also sit there wanting to invest a little of our own energy trying to assess why they did it. Because, in our aggravated minds, in its most simplistic viewing, avoiding the question is solely about shifting attention – away from something and toward something else.

…………… question deflection …………

Sure. It could be something as simple as steering you away from their lack of knowledge and steering you toward something they may actually know. But, in most cases, a full abandonment of a specific question is complete & utter deflection.

In the intelligence community they call this effort to shift attention as deflection or misdirection. Magicians do something similar getting people to focus on one thing and away from the trick itself. Completely avoiding the question is the business version of a distract-the-audience approach. It is this weird moment in which someone pretends to answer the question by actually answering some other question that magically appeared to replace the question really asked. It’s almost like entering an alternative universe for a while.

Sadly. Aggravated or not … the more practiced the deception <the more practiced the business magician is> the more likely you hesitate to step in <and the more you get aggravated as you hesitate> and correspondingly … the more many of these people actually believe deception works.

It is maddening.

Worse? If they are good at it, when someone responds to a question by not addressing the points of the question, thereby avoiding the issue itself, it doesn’t create unrelated discussion to the issue … it simply avoids the issue in totality.

Well. I am fairly sure we have all sat there in a meeting and watched something like this unfolding right before our eyes. The visceral response, the aggravation, we have to this ‘answer evasion’ situation is most likely found in the revelation it is occurring (watching it unfold before our eyes). Philosophically, we can see that through some internal conviction to retain something they feel like they should own <their reputation, their title, their perceived intelligence, their whatever> they justify evading the question.

Conviction. Yeah. I just used ‘internal conviction.’ This means their intentions reflect they are more important than not only the question itself … but you. You are not even dignified with an answer.

It is irksome <at its least worst>.

It is loathsome <at its most worst>.

Look. I give a partial pass to the asshats you can see who have some answer they want to give everyone, regardless of what question is asked, and blurt it out when given the opportunity. They haven’t deflected the question they just ignored it as unimportant to what they want to say and have been planning to say no matter what has been said up to that point. It’s the ones you know heard the question and just ignored it. Or avoided it. Or just didn’t answer it despite the fact they heard every word, every syllable and every intention from the question giver.

In other words, they intentionally do not answer the question.

<envision a deep sigh here>

I want people to face questions head on. And what makes this even more aggravating is that you know these people are quite capable of taking things head on.

How do I know that? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the intentions of the question giver themselves. It is a common tactic for the answer avoiders. The natural instinct is to ‘defend’ … to answer the attack. Fuck that. I want to say … “just answer the fucking question asked.”

How else do I know these people are quite capable of taking questions head on? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the question itself. This is not a deflection tactic. This is a ‘turn the question back on itself’ tactic. And, once again, your natural instinct is to defend or, well, answer the question you are asked. Aggravating. I want to say … “just answer the fucking question asked, you shithead.”

And maybe what makes this ‘not answering the question asked’ so maddening is that we, most sane pragmatic business people, tend to sit back <after saying “WTF”> and try and unravel why it happened and what the hell just happened. Unless you are in an interview scenario <in which you always have an opportunity, one-to-one, to hunker down and hammer out a clear answer> you are most likely in a room with other people and the non-answer has sent at least some of the people careening down a completely different road.

That makes it even MORE aggravating.

One intentional non answer to a question can completely derail a meeting or a discussion. That is intentional discourse. Or how about the other phrase from that academic’s book … engaging in an intentional continuum.

Oh. One last way you know these asshats are intentionally not answering the question is when they cleverly decline to answer the question with the infamous head fake answer … “I don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll work on finding the information for you and then get back to you with an answer” <and they have no intention of ever getting back to you>.

Yeah. You know … sure as shit … they have no plans to work on it and will never ‘get back to you’ unless you call them on it. They are intentionally refusing to answer the question assuming the conversation will move on and, in a laundry list of other shit to do, that this one will either never make the list or be so low on the list they can stiff arm you on answering based on “working on things more important.”

Its bullshit. You know its bullshit. They know its bullshit.

Well.

Fuck you.

Fuck you and the non-answering horse you rode in on.

In my mind a good well-articulated question demands some accountability. The one given the question is now accountable for the answer. They may try and deflect and they may just answer a completely different question … but a question asked exists … it does not disappear. You cannot get away from it.

You open your front door in the morning and there is a nice pile of dog poop squarely in the middle of your front door opening. You either clean it up or you avoid it. The question dodger never acknowledges the pile and steps over it moving on to something else. The shit stays at the front door and over time the smell increases and the flies crowd around. A good question unanswered is just like that. And a question dodger cannot avoid the smell in the end.

All that said. My message to the asshats who completely do not answer the question asked: You will be accountable to the question and to cleaning up the mess … now … or later <and quit aggravating me by not answering the question, you shithead>.

====

Author note:

When I reread this, which took me less than a ½ hour to write, I was a little surprised by how … well … aggravated the tone was.

Some ‘fucks’ and ‘asshats’.

I left it as is because as a 50something business guy who has always attempted to take on what needs to be taken on regardless of how painful t may have been <and career wise possibly less than prudent> I get a little angry about how the business world has become incredibly unkind to the risk takers & truth tellers and seems to reward the less-than-competent and ‘political maneuverers’ more often than it should. That’s my excuse for why I let this one stand as it does.

“We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did. Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt. Souls we didn’t crush. “

—

coral-vellichor

=================

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

—

(via madelinemharris)

=============

Ok. Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good business topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, responsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility. I thought about this during a discussion on Distributed Leadership/Holocracy/etc type business models. These discussions tend to revolve around flat, flatter & flattened operating models. The point being everyone agrees there has to be some leadership roles and, yet, not be hierarchy or command/control.

Anyway. To be clear. I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

We don’t talk about this relationship enough. Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

Well … no shit Sherlock. But if your role models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

Yeah. Sure. Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

This happens more so even in management. It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority. Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility. This is shared responsibility. In other words … this is leadership.

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

Despite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time. You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>. You actually also share responsibility for the consequences — intended and unintended. This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

Now. Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make. The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind, but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of an American Indian. Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible. I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come. Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’, well, I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple. You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come and may arise from your decision.

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come. And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good. And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

Why do I say that?

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy. In fact .. it is really really hard. In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

Huh?

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic. Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular. And, I will tell you, what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

Anyway.

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may. I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

Well.

You know what? To end this thing today let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty, not just obligation, to assume shared responsibility. Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.